NPR piece on the Right Wing Response

“I may not have won your vote,” Obama said, “but I hear your voices, need your help, and I will be your president, too.”

But the promise meant little to leaders of the religious right, who are undaunted by the Democrats’ gains in the White House and in Congress.

“I knew, moments after the election results came in, that I was now part of the resistance movement,” says Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.


Sore losers.


  1. #1 Geoffrey Alexander
    November 14, 2008

    Remember that we heard much of the same knee-jerk response from some Hillary supporters after the primary. I have no illusions about the die-hard nature of much of the Right; but I have hope that Obama (if he genuinely exhibits the traits he speaks of) will win over a good number of GOP moderates and even thoughtful conservatives. He’s got the skills to do so, after all.

  2. #2 Gary Bohn
    November 14, 2008

    “I knew, moments after the election results came in, that I was now part of the resistance movement”

    Does that mean the religious right will join the …gasp… terrorists?

  3. #3 Christian
    November 14, 2008

    Just out of curiosity and for the sake of the argument: How come you see these people as sore losers for being unhappy with the outcome of a perfectly democratic vote, while on the other hand you very adamantly defend the protesters of the evenly democratic prop 8 vote? After all, Obama won hands down in California, so there are clearly a lot of people who voted for Obama but against gay marriage. Are you not saying that these voters, while voting for Obama, made a sound and democratic decision that should be respected, when on the other hand the same voters on the same day and on the same ballot, while voting against gay marriage, made an unjust and undemocratic decision that should be opposed?

    Or in other words: If you think it is good to support the prop 8 protesters, although prop 8 clearly passed (by 52 to 48 if I remember correctly), then why do you see die-hard McCain supporters as sore losers if they reject the result of the presidential election? After all, the McCain people are not calling for a reversal of the presidential election results, while those opposed to prop 8 have made it very clear, that they are not going to accept the outcome of the vote.

  4. #4 marilove
    November 14, 2008

    Christian, Prop 8 should not even have been on the ballots, nor any prop like it. Gay marriage is a civil and human rights issue. Voting for president is not. Period.

  5. #5 JanieBelle
    November 14, 2008

    Marilove is correct. Civil rights are not up for approval by the majority.

    They are also not subject to the whim of the invisible zombie who lives in the sky, as pronounced to us by the con-man behind the pulpit.

    The Constitution was specifically set up to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

    Prop 8 fails on two Constitutional counts: Equal protection and Establishment.

  6. #6 Mike
    November 14, 2008

    I see the difference in the religious nature of the different decisions. Obama was elected primarily because he won the trust and admiration of a majority of the electorate.

    Prop 8 was a religious rising with a big dollop of fear and a healthy helping of lies about kindergarten curricula. And the trampling of a whole class of human’s rights because of a religious difference of opinion is ludicrous and shameful. I’d expect that in a theocracy, not America. I would label prop 8 proponents ‘Iraniacs’ based on their level of tolerance.

    Becoming the ‘resistance’ implies a level of militaristic involvement that should be left with the last of the ballots. I have lived with my head down, embarrassed and often appalled by our current ‘govment’ for 8 years. I am happy that those who elected that rabble, twice, should now feel bad for a bit but resistance is pointless and counterproductive.

  7. #7 marilove
    November 14, 2008

    What do you think about the vote in Arkansas to ban gay adoption? Well, to ban adoption by any non-married couple? That really gets under my goat. But I’m not sure if it would be considered a civil/human rights issue? Of course, it could be considered as much when it comes to the children who will no doubt be harmed by such a stupid, stupid measure.

  8. #8 marilove
    November 14, 2008

    Indeed, Mike. It scares me that our country’s laws are being made because of religion. No religion should that much of a stronghold on our laws. But it does.

  9. #9 marilove
    November 14, 2008

    Woot for leaving out entire words.

  10. #10 Scott
    November 14, 2008

    I believe that the term the commenter was looking for was “loyal opposition” instead of “resistance movement”. The former term suggests honest brokers with honest disagreements working toward a common good. The latter term reinforces the “us versus them” militancy that the current Republican Party has been famos for the last 20 years. The Republicans were militant and “my way or the highway” even when they were in power. I don’t see that changing now that they are (or soon will be) out of power.

    Sigh… I consider myself to be a “conservative”, and used to be a life long Republican before the Republican Party left me for more miltant pastures. It’s sad that it has come to this.

  11. #11 Mike
    November 14, 2008

    I appreciate your efforts and welcome your “loyal opposition” anytime but sadly “armed and angry resistance” may be closer to the truth.

  12. #12 JanieBelle
    November 14, 2008

    What do you think about the vote in Arkansas to ban gay adoption? Well, to ban adoption by any non-married couple?

    It certainly exposes the lie about being “for families”, doesn’t it? or “for the kids”.

    The fuckers don’t give a shit about kids or families. It’s about control, it’s about power, it’s about money.

  13. #13 Greg Laden
    November 14, 2008

    Scott, Welcome to the Democratic Party. We have a biggish tent.

  14. #14 D. C. Sessions
    November 14, 2008

    Civil rights are not up for approval by the majority.

    So you don’t think that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was valid?

  15. #15 Strider
    November 14, 2008

    Fuck ’em!!!!!!!!